Grim Dawn 2 - backlash - Let's Talk

Blizz did that later with D2:LoD. I think they were called ‘synergies.’ It would be a good idea for Grim Dawn since it has so many damage types and skills to choose from. It would especially be a good fit for Grimarillion since there are more class combos to make. The Zenith classes kind of do that already with a modifier node if you pair two specific Zenith classes together.

Maybe an option for GD2? Especially if Crate decides to streamline the damage types?

Edit.

D2 was the perfect game for the time, just like WoW (vanilla, BC, WotLK) ‘was.’ D1 alone was a great game, especially for those tabletop gamers. BUT… D2 expanded on D1’s greatness and Blizz learned from the Monk x-pack too. It was a fun class, but Sierra Games had its issues with bugs for sure. The classes to choose from were all really fun and all had a shot at what was considered ‘end game content’ way back when.

I try to go back to D2 (well D2:R), but it’s too dated. I even tried to go back to WoW (well Classic) and that too was just too dated. Heck even Dragon Age (w/x-pack and dlc) hasn’t aged very well. That’s why I am back to Grim Dawn. I play D3 at the start of a new season and stop when I finish the journey questlog, then it’s back to GD. Talk about replay ability.

1 Like

Monster immunities are the most idiotic thing ever. High resistances, fine. But immuntities that can’t be broken save for equpping a super rare item are awful game design.

I was having fun recently playing Project Diablo 2 with a fire Sorc, until I got to Hell. 90 percent of monsters in Act I and II are fire immune, I lost all the will to play.

2 Likes

I think it’s not that bad. At least the characters are well written, unlike some modern RPGs.
There are definitely worse games to play, especially from around that time.

All games at some point age badly if you started playing new games with better graphics. But new games don’t have a great gameplay loop, unlike older games hence they are more popular today and seeing all the older titles getting here and there somewhat remasters.

Back in the day the devs actually cared making a great game and not release EA with cash shops in mind.

‘‘Better graphics’’ is a somewhat relative term.

In many cases, newer games do indeed have objectively better graphics, if we measure it by texture detail, resolution and animations. But they often introduce many new effects which somewhat downplay the increase in clearer graphics that was brought by better textures and resolution.

I think graphical style is as equally important as graphical quality. Take Diablo 2. Even at its release, it wasn’t groundbreaking by its graphical quality. But it had great graphical style, in terms of models, color palette and contrast. And it has held up pretty good so far, so that modern mods like PD2 which still use the LoD version look great just with the increase in resolution (with the help of AI upsacling of course).

Grim Dawn, while not the best in terms of graphical quality, has fantastic graphical style and I would say the best color palette I have ever seen in a game. I also like the animations, I don’t like the ‘‘whole screen goes brrrr…’’ thing that seems to be so prevalent in D3/4 and POE.

There’s a sumptuous case against “newer engine = better game” from Left 4 Dead 2 and Back 4 Blood as well.

tl;dr: it’s not about how shiny your hammer is, it’s about how well you wield it.

1 Like

No. Bad graphics isn’t what makes old games age badly or unplayable. It’s missing quality of life features, bad controls, bad game design, etc. Things that at the time you took for granted because there was nothing better (or you didn’t know about it), but you have since learned that better is possible or you simply no longer want to put up with that kind of bs that you did when you were younger.

Good example is the original Witcher game. I thought it was really cool when I first played it. I replayed it a few years ago and boy… wew. It’s not the ‘bad’ graphics, it’s the gameplay that’s just atrocious. The story is still fine, although somewhat less interesting than I remembered, but the combat was so bad that I put the game on easy just to get through it as fast as possible. (The second game doesn’t have this problem.)

Remasters also heavily play into the sentimental emotions (or what’s the right word here?) people have from playing these games when they were teenagers. It’s “easy” money, as you don’t have to do any game design, story writing, etc. Plus it has free marketing due to the original game being popular and people buying it because they liked the original.

Companies making a remaster of a game doesn’t mean the original is still a good game to play as is.

3 Likes

not played project diablo 2, if you have played diablo2 before, you knew this would happen… so you just made bad leveling choices =P even though i think 90% is exaggerated but we all do it so…

but using immunities to strengthen the argument for a little damage type streamlining obviously backfired … oh well ^^

Diablo 2 is a game that makes you think and plan properly, unlike these modern ARPG.

I love Diablo 2, not just about nostalgia, but that game has allot of depth to it, especially it’s crafting with the cube.

damage type streamlining question to “normal” GD players, so not those that spend 50%+ of play time in grimtools.

would you miss internal trauma damage? i didn’t play many physical damage builds, but this damage type to me was just additional text i really didn’t care about.

and since i’m for replacing bleeding damage with vitality decay damage and removing vitality (since vitality and chaos are so similar), i would probably also remove internal trauma…
but since i’m also not a fan or removing stuff, i might keep them as status effect/conditions, like for example bleeding is in guild wars 1.

then having enemies immune to bleeding would not be a big deal. and internal trauma could be the equivalent for enemies that don’t bleed. and a jelly like enemy would be immune to both…

and those would be bound to sharp and blunt weapons, that would also allow to have use for weapon switching that isn’t just a gimmick left over from diablo times… but how much of an impact would it need to have to make it worth it, and it probably becomes either useless or the only option…

but also the physical damage types would be less varied compared to the magical ones…

just some more thought exercises about damage type streamlining, even though i’m not a fan of streamlining in most cases…

imo
trauma mechanically is slightly more “unique”, which is why its builds can feel more direct/specific opportune than just ex decay or poison, where decay builds ex seem largely non existent, and poison builds still tend to rely enough on flat(acid) to be less distinct. Trauma, granted some is also modifier related, completely ignoring armour means it has a different mitigation aspect that can play in your offensive selection, and ofc also defensive needs.
That’s got nothing really to be with “trauma” theme tho, and just quirk/collateral outcome of phys v armour mechanics or regular dot v resist and avg enemy phys res being that much lower, with certain skill modifier comboing allowing for high trauma to coast on by itself, or previous Octavious flat phys high trauma bonus warlords.

Vitality/decay i personally feel does nothing unique in GD, could be stripped now and in GD2 and nothing really would be lost besides a different red colour. I dont’ even really think it’s as thematically unique as chaos because it’s “everywhere” and unspecified (could be undead unique as example). And as i understood way back in early GD dev it was actually different and more close to TQ’s lifesteal/hp dmg usage? and got turned into regular dmg over time losing that inherent lifesteal dot effect and being more default bundled in? (for lack of better options?) - correct me if i’m misguided about GD og Vit dmg and lifesteal

phys/pierce/bleed still confusing the avg player might be an indicator it’s just not functioning that well, thematically or practically, trauma doesn’t really help or change much on that front besides making some people question what’s the different between taking a mace hit to the face and bleeding vs IT’ing, - and why don’t you always do both or sometimes only one or the other :sweat_smile: But i’ll again just take that as a quirk of GD engine/attempts of fixing TQ stuff (dots not working etc) and not deliberately intended to confuse players or be needlessly complicated for anyone but devs or experienced players.

Ironically i’m with the ones lamenting d2 immunities, and one might even point to d2r “fixing” it by introducing sunder to alleviate that gripe apparently enough had. But d2 did then have a more entertaining application of bleed/“trauma” with crushing blow/open wounds etc, and GD2 could do something similarly interesting making use of pierce/bleed/trauma without having them be just their own/separate generic dmg types like fire/poison etc.

Someone also recently brought up the difference between axes/maces(and swords?) i think. And while GD does apply a semi thematic approach with pierce/bleed/trauma there (unrelated to that weapon main speed scaling difference), it still doesn’t really change the actual function or application, or that conversion is equally the same regardless + dmg scaling (either can or can’t be converted etc bonus dmg sources are not restricted either)

i don’t think there being less physical dmg types than magick would be that significant, it’s already fewer, if we cut 3 magick types and 1½ phys type/interaction seems like it’s staying somewhat same split amounts

for me i think it should be something like

  • tri ele gone entirely, or should atleast be something very unique
  • Fire/burn can stay, cold and lightning can stay, too classic and ice shards are different from lightning strike anyway :grin:
  • electro and frostburn i don’t think is necessary and could be cut or altered in effect, either more close to gd1 pseudo dot effect, or specifically tie them to status effects or debuffs like stun/freeze/shattering debuff effects and not so much a bonus dmg or dot dmg build type.
  • Acid could go but could also stay; either way keep poison, this could either uniquely be the only dot or the dot focus build like how we might see bleed in GD1.
  • Vit/decay gone, strip entirely as is or at minimum fully change mechanically to not be regular dmg but solely lifesteal/hp attacks etc. Either more like purely debuffing utility or highly unique build wise. - or do both while making it race specific, so ex only undeads have vit dmg/these new attacks
  • Aether/Chaos, good colours, interesting world related, shouldn’t be restricted from player access/enemy race only, but perhaps make it more build/class thematic specialized, (- which would ofc also tie in with no applying the same conversion mechanic approach availability like GD1 ended up with).
  • physical dmg keep,
  • rethink and rework bleed/pierce/trauma effect and application as not just 3 other damages, but dont’ just simply merge pierce/bleed in GD2 (as otherwise been suggested for solution in GD1), apply one or the other more as effect and/or inherent related dmg+effect.
    -bleed could become its own dmg/dot type build similar to poison, and “thematic immunities” could even still be a thing if so desired, if it was combined with “trauma”/crushing effects that could then work on ex skeletons (bones might not bleed but you can smack them to dust :scorv:)
1 Like

I have played Diablo 2, and I knew this would happen. That’s why I invested primarily in Fireball and Combustion, but also Blizzard. But the thing is, if you try to spread your points equally, both your fire and cold damage will suck and you will be too weak. So one of those has to be your primary damage type. Fire, in my case. Bu then, your cold damage can kill fire immune mobs, in principle, but it is so weak that it takes ages. If I run into 20 Fallen, who are all immune to fire, it takes me 15 minutes to kill them with Blizzard - and if they weren’t immune to fire, I would kill them in 30 seconds.

It’s just a slog to play, with no easy solution (e.g. getting Infinity is not exactly easy).

OG Diablo 2 sucks. Play Resurrected instead, it has charms that can break immunities.

As of right now, i think Grim Dawn is the best ARPG on the market. It has proven no need for a live service game to be good and even successful after all these years.

I just hope Crate don’t dig their hands too deep into these live-service modules with Grim Dawn 2.

i play diablo 2 only with the enjoy-sp mod (+basemod and pluggy) https://www.moddb.com/mods/enjoy-sp-mod

the abysmal drop rate is fine for bnet but for SP…

@krell_154
yeah my last sorc i also stopped playing but that was my fault, the enemies with 2 immunities really suck, but i did not play DCSS yet and i wasn’t aware that skipping enemies was an option xD and i don’t remember but i assume story enemies with 2 immunities were possible? but like i said immunities are not my preferred option…

@ Gnomish_Inquisition
right i forgot about elemental damage, i would totally get if it would be removed, but i’m not sure if i want it to be removed…

but if earth damage would be added then yes remove elemental immediately xD stone golem for more minion options… ^^

electro and frostburn i would agree or maybe turn into status/condition effects.

“bad leveling choices” aka choosing one damage type over the others.

I have thousands of hours in D2, but to pretend that everything in the game is perfect and without blemish is asinine, and monster immunities are one big blemish.

2 Likes

Be a Hero and not like Marius…

Agreed. It was a very influential game, but also a very flawed one.